BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut slope failure expert witnessFairfield Connecticut hospital construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expertsFairfield Connecticut construction claims expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction expert testimonyFairfield Connecticut structural engineering expert witnesses
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Expert Builders Information
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Connecticut Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Case law precedent


    Building Expert Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Fairfield Connecticut

    License required for electrical and plumbing trades. No state license for general contracting, however, must register with the State.


    Building Expert Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders & Remo Assn of Fairfield Co
    Local # 0780
    433 Meadow St
    Fairfield, CT 06824

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Builders Association of Eastern Connecticut
    Local # 0740
    20 Hartford Rd Suite 18
    Salem, CT 06420

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of New Haven Co
    Local # 0720
    2189 Silas Deane Highway
    Rocky Hill, CT 06067

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Hartford Cty Inc
    Local # 0755
    2189 Silas Deane Hwy
    Rocky Hill, CT 06067

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of NW Connecticut
    Local # 0710
    110 Brook St
    Torrington, CT 06790

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Connecticut (State)
    Local # 0700
    3 Regency Dr Ste 204
    Bloomfield, CT 06002

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10


    Building Expert News and Information
    For Fairfield Connecticut


    Additional Insured Coverage Confirmed

    Insured's Commercial Property Policy Deemed Excess Over Unobtained Flood Policy

    4 Steps to Take When a Worker Is Injured on Your Construction Site

    Trumark Homes Hired James Furey as VP of Land Acquisition

    Depreciation of Labor in Calculating Actual Cash Value Against Public Policy

    Construction Defect Case Not Over, Despite Summary Judgment

    Southern California Lost $8 Billion in Construction Wages

    Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims

    Quick Note: Subcontractor Payment Bond = Common Law Payment Bond

    CDJ’s #6 Topic of the Year: Does Colorado Need Construction Defect Legislation to Spur Affordable Home Development?

    Did You Really Accept That Bid? – How Contractors Can Avoid Post-Acceptance Bid Disputes Over Contract Terms

    Illinois Town’s Bond Sale Halted Over Fraudulent Hotel Deals

    Remodels Replace Construction in Redding

    New York Court Finds Insurers Cannot Recover Defense Costs Where No Duty to Indemnify

    Wisconsin Court Enforces Breach of Contract Exclusion in E&O Policy

    Coverage for Construction Defect Barred by Contractual-Liability Exclusion

    How U.S. Design and Architecture Firms Can Profit from the Chinese Market and Avoid Pitfalls

    Time to Repair Nevada’s Construction Defect Laws?

    US Court Disputes $1.8B AECOM Damage Award in ‘Remarkable Fraud’ Suit

    Accident/Occurrence Requirement Does not Preclude Coverage for Vicarious Liability or Negligent Supervision

    Subcontractor’s Claim against City Barred by City’s Compliance with Georgia Payment Bond Statute

    Hartford Stadium Controversy Still Unresolved

    Construction Defect Claims are on the Rise Due to Pandemic-Related Issues

    Suffolk Construction Drywall Suits Involve Claim for $3 Million in Court Costs

    $24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed To Prove Supplier’s Negligence Or Breach Of Contract Caused A SB800 Violation

    Owner Bankruptcy: What’s a Contractor to Do?

    Federal Court Predicts Coverage In Utah for Damage Caused By Faulty Workmanship

    Stop by BHA’s Booth at WCC and Support the Susan G. Komen Foundation

    White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2019

    Traub Lieberman Partner Gregory S. Pennington and Associate Emily A. Velcamp Obtain Summary Judgment in Favor of Residential Property Owners

    High School Gym Closed by Construction Defects

    Contractor Definition Central to Coverage Dispute

    Jason Poore Receives 2018 Joseph H. Foster Young Lawyer Award

    Number of Occurrences Depends on Who is Sued

    Recent Federal Court Decision Favors Class Action Defendants

    An Upward Trend in Commercial Construction?

    Chicago Makes First Major Update to City's Building Code in 70 Years

    There Are Consequences to Executed Documents Such as the Accord and Satisfaction Defense

    Litigation Counsel of America Honors Partner Victor Anderson with Peter Perlman Award

    Texas Jury Awards $5.3 Million to Company Defamed by Union: Could it work in Pennsylvania?

    Toxic Drywall Not Covered Under Homeowner’s Policy

    Burden Supporting Termination for Default

    Justin Bieber’s Unpaid Construction Bill Stalls House Sale

    Revel Closing Shows Gambling Is No Sure Thing for Renewal

    Growing Optimism Among Home Builders

    Contractor’s Assignment of Construction Contract to Newly Formed Company Before Company Was Licensed, Not Subject to B&P 7031

    Now Available: Seyfarth’s 50 State Lien Law Notice Requirements Guide (2023-2024 Edition)

    Mississippi River Spends 40 Days At Flood Stage, Mayors Push for Infrastructure Funding

    IoT: Take Guessing Out of the Concrete Drying Process

    Jason Smith and Teddie Arnold Co-Author Updated “United States – Construction” Chapter in 2024 Legal 500: Country Comparative Guides
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Breach Of Duty of Good Faith And Fair Dealing Packaged With Contract Disputes Act Claim

    March 27, 2023 —
    An interesting opinion on a motion to dismiss came out of the United States Court of Federal Claims dealing with the claim that the government breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing in administering the prime contract. The contractor’s argument was that the government breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing by denying the contractor’s claim under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA). This was a creative claim and argument that deserves consideration because it tied in the contracting officer’s denial of the CDA claim for additional money with a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. In this case, Aries Construction Corp. v. U.S., 2023 WL 2146598 (Fed. Cl. 2023), a prime contractor was hired for a water pipeline construction project. The contractor encountered unexpected difficult site conditions that required additional equipment and labor. The contractor informed the contracting officer and alleged it was instructed to proceed with the additional equipment and labor. The contractor submitted a claim under the CDA but the contracting officer denied the claim. The contractor pursued the claim in the United States Court of Federal Claims arguing the government breached the contract and, of interest, breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing. The government moved to dismiss the breach of good faith and fair dealing claim arguing that besides failing to state a cause of action the Court of Federal Claims had no jurisdiction because the breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing was not properly presented to the contracting officer under the CDA. The Court of Federal Claims denied the government’s motion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Not Everything is a Pollutant: A Summary of Recent Cases Supporting a Common Sense and Narrow Interpretation of the CGL's Pollution Exclusion

    October 26, 2020 —
    Those of us who suffered through law school are familiar with the argument that there are fundamental rules applicable to contract interpretation and that a certain contract language interpretation would “swallow the rule.” However, insurance companies have long advocated for an interpretation of the CGL policy’s pollution exclusion that would “swallow the coverage” that the insureds thought they were purchasing. Insurers have successfully argued in several states that the pollution exclusion’s definition of “pollutant” should be read literally, and be applied to any “solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal irritant or contaminant including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, and waste.” As anyone with children can attest to, the range of items and substances that can be considered an “irritant” is limitless. The logical extent of the insurer’s interpretation brings to mind the high school student who, for his science fair project, convinced his fellow students to ban “dihydrogen monoxide.”1 Citing evidence such as the fact that everyone who has ever died was found to have consumed “dihydrogen monoxide,” he convinced them of the dangers of . . . water. Similarly, an overly expansive reading of the definition of “pollutant” could lead to the absurd result of even applying it to ubiquitous harmless substances such as water. The pollution exclusion, therefore, has run amok in many states and has allowed insurers to avoid liability for otherwise covered claims. Fortunately, insureds in many states have successfully argued that the pollution exclusion is subject to a more limited interpretation based on several different theories. For example, some courts have agreed that the pollution exclusion, as initially introduced by the insurance industry, should be limited to instances of traditional environmental pollution. Others have held that the exclusion is ambiguous as to its interpretation. The reasonable expectations of the insureds do not support a broad reading of the defined term “pollutant.” Below, this article addresses a number of recent decisions that have adopted a pro policyholder interpretation of the pollution exclusion. As with most insurance coverage issues, choice of law clearly matters. Reprinted courtesy of Philip B. Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Wilusz may be contacted at pbw@sdvlaw.com Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Defects could become Issue in Governor’s Race

    October 22, 2014 —
    According to today’s Denver Business Journal, construction defects have emerged as a potential issue in Colorado’s gubernatorial race. During last night’s debate, Republican challenger Bob Beauprez criticized incumbent Democrat John Hickenlooper for failing to help senators with a last-minute push to enact a bill stripping away homeowner protections in construction disputes. Republicans had argued that the bill was needed to appease apartment developers who claim that quality control and insurance costs are too high on condominium projects. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, The Witt Law Firm
    Mr. Witt welcomes comments at www.wittlawfirm.net

    Reminder: Your MLA Notice Must Have Your License Number

    November 26, 2014 —
    Remember a couple of years ago when the Virginia mechanic’s lien rules changed to require inclusion of a claimant’s contractor’s license number (where a license is required)? If not, then this is a reminder of that particular wrinkle in the strictly interpreted mechanic’s lien statute. This requirement applies to all mechanic’s lien memoranda and, like all parts of this crazy statute, will invalidate a lien if not met. Well, another change to the statute happened with a bit less fanfare. The change back in 2013 that came along with the license number requirement for a lien memorandum is a change in the mechanic’s lien agent notice requirement that applies to residential construction. The basic requirement, namely that those performing residential construction must notify any mechanic’s lien agent (“MLA”) listed on a building permit within 30 days of starting work that they are on the job and could file a lien, has not changed. What the amendments to the lien statutes in 2013 added was a requirement that the notice, like a lien memorandum, must include the contractor’s or subcontractor’s license number. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Corporate Transparency Act’s Impact on Real Estate: Reporting Companies, Exemptions and Beneficial Ownership Reporting (webinar)

    December 04, 2023 —
    On October 23, 2023, colleague Andrew Weiner and Kevin Gaunt, counsel at Hunton Andrews Kurth, examined the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), effective Jan. 1, 2024, and its impact on real estate entities and transactions, including who is considered a reporting company subject to new beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirements and whether an exemption applies. The panel also discussed certain state laws that impose similar reporting requirements as the CTA and described best practices for real estate counsel to assist their clients with preparing for the CTA’s implementation and ongoing compliance. The panel also reviewed other important considerations, including:
    1. Which real estate entities will likely be most affected by the CTA’s implementation and why?
    2. What exemptions may apply?
    3. How will the CTA’s reporting requirements affect real estate transactions for lenders and investors/buyers?
      1. Read the court decision
        Read the full story...
        Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

        Allegations that Carrier Failed to Adequately Investigate Survive Demurrer

        July 30, 2014 —
        The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's dismissal of a complaint alleging bad faith for the insurer's failure to adequately investigate the claim. Maslo v. Ameriprise Auto & Home Ins., 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 564 (Cal. Ct. App. June 27, 2014). The insured was injured in an auto accident caused by an uninsured motorist. The insured sought policy limits of $250,000 from the insurer. In response, the insurer demanded arbitration. The arbitrator awarded $164,120.91. The insured sued, alleging the breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleged the insured was not at fault. The police report found that the uninsured motorist was the sole cause of the accident. The insured provided the police report and medical records to the insurer. When the insured demanded the $250,000 policy limits, the insurer did not respond. Read the court decision
        Read the full story...
        Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
        Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

        Avoiding Disaster Due to Improper Licensing

        February 18, 2019 —
        IT’S NOT ENOUGH FOR A CONTRACTOR TO BE LICENSED . . . it must be properly licensed. We are reminded of this by the recent case of JMS Air Conditioning and Appliance Service, Inc. v. Santa Monica Community College District, Bernards Bros., Inc., 30 Cal. App. 5th 945 (2018). In that case, JMS entered into an $8.2M subcontract with Bernards to install an HVAC system in a new facility being built for the District. JMS held a C-20 warm-air heating, ventilating and air-conditioning license. A year into the project, Bernards sought permission from the District to substitute another subcontractor for JMS (as required under Public Contract Code Section 4107 for listed subcontractors on public works of improvement). Among other things, Bernards contended that JMS was not properly licensed to perform that portion of the work which consisted of hydronic plumbing and hydronic boiler work. JMS countered that this work was an integral part of installing an HVAC system, and relied on Business & Profession Code Section 7059, which permits work that is “incidental and supplemental to the performance of the work for which the specialty contractor is licensed,” and a California State Licensing Board regulation which defines “incidental and supplemental” as meaning “essential to accomplish the work in which the contractor is classified.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, §831.) Read the court decision
        Read the full story...
        Reprinted courtesy of Candace Matson, Sheppard Mullin
        Ms. Matson may be contacted at cmatson@sheppardmullin.com

        Supreme Court Grants Petition for Review Regarding Necessary Parties in Lien Foreclosure Actions

        August 17, 2017 —
        For several years, the requirements for which parties must be named in a lien foreclosure action when a release of lien bond is in place have been cloudy. RCW 60.04 et seq., the “mechanics’ lien” or “construction lien” statute, provides protection for a party or person who provides labor, materials, or equipment to a construction project. That person or party, if not paid, can file a lien against the construction project property to secure recovery. As the lien impacts the property by “clouding title” and could potentially result in foreclosure of the property, the statute sets forth strict requirements with respect to timing, notice, and parties. For example, the lien must be recorded within 90 days of the person or party’s last day of work or materials or equipment supplied, and the lien claimant must then give a copy of the claim of lien to the owner or reputed owner within 14 days of the lien recording. RCW 60.04.081. The statute also allows a property owner or other party to “free” the property from the lien prior to the claim being resolved by issuing a release of lien bond. While the claim is still in dispute, the lien then attaches to the bond and not the property. The same rules about foreclosure, however, still apply but not without some confusion. Read the court decision
        Read the full story...
        Reprinted courtesy of Lindsay K. Taft, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
        Ms. Taft may be contacted at ltaft@ac-lawyers.com